Apply with in.
– Sign seen at entrance to fast-food joint
It made me stop and think, I can tell you that.
I admit that in can be trepid, telligent, genious, quiring, and cisive: all desirable traits on the job and, presumably, when applying for same.
On the other hand, in can be ane, sipid, and dolent from time to time: not the image I want to project at all.
In is also a little unpredictable: troverted and hibited sometimes, but sistent to the point of sulting at others. Maybe in’s sleeping habits are to blame: I’ve heard it’s a somniac.
Besides that, in is such a tricky helper. You’d think its pairing with competent, sensitive, curious, and decent would be a good thing, yet somehow those combinations are less than spiring.
And it’s not as if there aren’t alternatives to in: out, for one.
You might say that out can be too spoken, even to the point of being rageous or landish, and I can’t argue with that. Maybe it’s a consequence of being so going.
But I’ve observed that out can help folks class and perform the competition (or even just last them): to achieve put that is standing, even when numbered, flanked, or right gunned.
And although care is needed to control any bursts, out’s ability to wit and think most people is worth the extra supervisory effort, or so I find.
Short, then, I usually don’t apply with in: stead, I prefer to go with out.
This is post #818. Gotta love these palindromes.